We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you. More infoClose You can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our cookies policyClose

Tackling female genital mutilation in the UK

All rapid responses

Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.

The findings from our recent research (1) with Somali families living in Bristol – a group who appear to be particularly targeted by FGM-safeguarding initiatives – provide considerable empirical support for many of the concerns raised by Creighton et al in their editorial (2), particularly the high ‘social cost’ and ‘emotional weight’ borne by innocent people in these contexts. For example, evidence from our focus groups suggests that the requirements of the FGM Enhanced Dataset risk retraumatising women who have been cut with repeated questioning by health professionals about experiences they wish to forget. Participants also voiced a concern that a ‘fixation’ with FGM undermined their receipt of appropriate and effective health care. Our focus group discussions were dominated by stories documenting the myriad ways in which approaches to FGM-safeguarding – whether provided in health care, via children’s schools but particularly through the heavy-handed approaches of social services and police conducting home visits – stigmatised and criminalised families who had done nothing wrong. Participants described how their hopes for ‘normal’ lives – for family holidays, to have their needs accommodated and to be treated with dignity and respect – were undermined by professionals encouraged to see suspicion in everyday, mundane experiences. This led to disillusionment and disengagement, and additional stress when engaging with, statutory services. It also undermined trust within families, the local Somali community and wider British society.

As Creighton et al suggest, this distress was magnified by a sense that the evidence on which these policies were based was inaccurate. There was no question among our participants that FGM was wrong, and should be stopped. Indeed, some of our participants had worked for many years as anti-FGM campaigners in the UK or abroad. Universally, participants described how FGM was no longer something considered part of British Somali culture. They referenced the lack of successful prosecutions but also their own lack of knowledge of UK-based Somali FGM victims, despite sometimes long UK residence. The fact that this lack of evidence was generally treated by officials as a ‘collective professional failure’, as Creighton et al suggest, rather than actual low prevalence was seen, by participants, as testament to the lack of involvement of FGM-affected groups in the policy-making process, and also the Islamophobia inherent in much current policy which treats Muslims unquestioningly as ‘suspect communities’ (3). Improving these policies requires a multi-faceted approach, which examines their development, implementation, as well as impact. But there is a dire need for a more comprehensive examination of the quality of the prevalence statistics on which these policies are based. This will be the focus of a new study funded by the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute at the University of Bristol, beginning in April.